Definition of Political Hack
I've shown that GDP grew more under Obama than Bush. I've shown that GDP has grown more in the first 3 years than it did under Reagan. I've shown that both Bush and Reagan posted positive GDP growth one year, and then had it fall the next year. I've shown poor employment numbers for Bush and Reagan. I've shown similar level of misery index (higher for Reagan and just lower for Bush) to Obama. I've shown extremely poor approval ratings for Bush and around 40% for Reagan (which just about matches Obama).A political hack is a negative term ascribed to a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction. The term "hired gun" is often used in tandem to further describe the moral bankruptcy of the "hack".
Political hack may also be used by a political opponent in order to erode confidence or credentials of an opponent or his hired campaign help. Often used to demean well credentialed individuals for political purposes.
Every time I do this, you say, "well this isn't about them", but you have made it about them by supporting them by not supporting Obama while you support them for the same reasons. I have asked you multiple times to provide one reason why Obama has done a worse job than Reagan, and all you can say is "taxes and leadership", which literally makes no sense. You have spewed enough rhetoric on this thread to last this board for a decade, but I will remain here debunking every out-of-context statistic you post until you are done misrepresenting Obama and yourself.
Though I do appreciate that you didn't rat people out - I don't report people either. I'm not in third grade and I can handle myself. I do respect for that.
**Edit again: And I want to be clear, I am not saying that Obama was better or worse than Bush or Reagan. As you said, they are not up for reelection, so I really don't care. My only point here is that he is clearly not as bad as your are making him out to be considering the conditions he inherited when he became president. Let's be honest, he's had a rough go at things when it comes to the economy, and though I know you probably don't agree with his health care bill, besides that he has accomplished much - especially in the world of counterterrorism. Obviously you want your guy to win next November, but I would like to see you advocate for the republican party in a more honest fashion.
Last edited by whysoserious; 10-25-11 at 09:17 PM.
I assume you voted for Obama and if so are these the results you expected? When you posted the Bush numbers and Reagan numbers you ignored when their economic policies went into effect yet blame them for the numbers you claim they generated. That is more of a political hack than anything I have ever done
I'll do it again:
1982q2 2.2 (Jan 1982 - one quarter after Reagan's budgets and policies should have been in place)
2002q2 2.1 (Jan 2002 - Also one quarter after Bush's budget and policies should have been in place)
Those are both after each president had a chance to implement his new policies and budgets. Now, as I said, it is misleading because it is only a small portion of the picture, but is no different than what you've done. I am not saying Reagan and Bush were bad because of those numbers, but by your understanding of the situation, they should be.
Last edited by whysoserious; 10-25-11 at 09:25 PM.
I lived and worked during those times, did you? what you want to ignore is that with all the negative numbers in 1981 and 1982 Reagan still had incredible economic growth and added 17 million jobs to the economy. Bush took over a 9.9 trillion dollar economy that was going into recession and then 9/11 which was quite a shock and led to job losses. From January 2002 to January 2008 the Bush economy created 11 million jobs. Since Obama took office we have lost more jobs than what he inherited.
Now I will ask you my previous question a different way, if you knew in November 2008 that we would have the numbers we have today would you have voted for Obama and if so why?